1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Upon the selective claims added at the trial, the Defendant shall:

(a) 16.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff owned each of the instant real estate from April 14, 2009 to that date.

B. On December 7, 2012, the Defendant is Nonparty E and F [this is an aggregate building, H located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “H”).

) From the first floor underground of the shopping management body, only the remainder of the real estate except each of the instant real estate among H underground floors was leased for a private letter or use (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. Nevertheless, the Defendant occupied each of the instant real estate from December 20, 2012 to December 20, 201 as the time to commence the interior construction at the time of the instant lease agreement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 8, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 6-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 4,98,400 per month, which is the profit from the transfer of each of the instant real estate from December 8, 2012 to the time of delivery of each of the instant real estate or the time of loss of the Plaintiff’s ownership, as the Plaintiff occupied each of the instant real estate without permission on the first floor of H, including the instant real estate, from December 7, 2012, from the date of the instant lease agreement to December 8, 2012.

B. Inasmuch as benefits in return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the Plaintiff received benefits without any legal ground for determination, where the Defendant continuously occupied each of the instant real estate, but did not obtain actual benefits due to the Defendant’s failure to use and benefit therefrom, the obligation to return unjust enrichment does not constitute a return of unjust enrichment even if the Plaintiff suffered losses.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da8554, Jul. 10, 1998; 2010Da67036, Nov. 11, 2010). Only each of the evidence mentioned above is the Defendant from December 8, 2012.